Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that by framing the output as a local-vs-hosted diagnostic and by flagging 'unsupported capture behavior' — implying it reports gaps rather than failing. It still doesn't say whether this inspects the local machine, the remote host, or both, which is the key behavioral ambiguity for a detection tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no preamble or filler; every listed item corresponds to a distinct category of reported information. Nothing could be removed without losing scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description rightly avoids explaining return values, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is fit-for-purpose: for a zero-arg diagnostic probe, an agent still needs to know the condition that makes calling it worthwhile and what 'hosted Apps SDK readiness' means in practice, neither of which is given.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there are no inputs the description needed to explain. Schema description coverage is 100% and empty, and nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Report) and enumerates the concrete things reported: hosted Apps SDK readiness, read-only runtime capabilities, unsupported capture behavior, and the local stdio command. That distinguishes it from the embedding/inspection siblings by implication (it is a diagnostic probe), but it never names a sibling or explicitly frames itself as a preflight check, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether to call this before generate_embed_snippet, before inspect_url, or as a troubleshooting step. The reader must infer the trigger condition ('hosted Apps SDK readiness') entirely from the field list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.